9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W. P. Nos. 14580-14591/2017 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 13-4-2017 - Aravind Kumar, J. For the Petitioner : Tanmayee Rajkumar For the Respondent : Vedamurthy T. K ORDER Though matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner has called in question the correctness and legality of reassessment order dated 06.03.2017 - Annexure-E passed by first respondent under Section 9(2) of Central Sales Tax, 1956 (hereinafter refereed to as CST Act for short) read with Section 36(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as KVAT Act for short) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o it if any, within 7 days. Petitioner is said to have received the said notice on 25.02.2017 and as such, appeared before first respondent through its authorised representative on 03.03.2017 and sought for time to file detailed statement of objections. In the meanwhile, petitioner claims that C Forms covering inter-state sales of the value of ₹ 15,53,23,539/- had been submitted by petitioner before the jurisdictional local VAT Office. Subsequently on 04.03.2017 also petitioner claims to have filed before jurisdictional VAT Office C Forms covering inter-state sales of the value of ₹ 11,18,52,801/-. However, first respondent without extending an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by order dated 06.03.2017 Ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jkumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Vedamurthy, learned AGA appearing for respondents State. Perused the records. 7. Smt. Tanmayee, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would reiterate the contentions urged in writ petition and contends that on account of sufficient opportunity not being extended by first respondent authority, order of reassessment is in violation of principles of natural justice and she would also contend that C Forms which had already been filed before local VAT Office has also not been considered by first respondent while proceeding to frame reassessment order. Hence, she prays for quashing of the same. 8. Per contra, Sri. Vedamurthy, learned AGA appearing for respondents Authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave filed C Forms on 28.02.2017 and also thereafter on 04.03.2017 covering inter-state sales before the jurisdictional VAT Office. In fact authorised representative of petitioner appeared before first respondent on 03.03.2017 and sought for time to file detailed written submission / reply to the proposition notice dated 22.02.2017 and the fact of authorised representative of petitioner having appeared, has not even referred to under the impugned order and this fact is not seriously . In fact impugned order would disclose that there is no express reference to C Forms filed by petitioner on 28.02.2017 and 04.03.2017. The basis on which first respondent authority has proceeded to frame reassessment order is on the ground that there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material relied upon by petitioner to contend that C Forms covering inter-state sales has been ignored though it was required to be taken note of by the first respondent authority. 11. For all these reasons, impugned orders cannot be sustained. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) Order dated 06.03.2017 Annexure-E and consequential demand notice dated 06.03.2017 Annexure-F as well as endorsement dated 20.03.2017 Annexure-H issued by first respondent are hereby quashed. (iii) Reassessment proceedings is remitted back to first respondent for being disposed of in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. However, it is made clear that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
